tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post112397149096509279..comments2024-03-29T05:31:07.363-04:00Comments on CAMPONTHIS: THE NEW DOWNGRADE...12 dangers of Evangelical Co-Belligerence related to the Manhattan DeclarationSJ Camphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-10157160266952258632012-05-20T18:59:05.882-04:002012-05-20T18:59:05.882-04:00I think that people don't realize is they tend...I think that people don't realize is they tend to address these issues from a protestant prospective Rome has an agenda with Co-beligerency<br /><br />I wish people would read the 59 articles on ecumenism their is also such a thing as Ecumenical co-beliegerency the problem is where do we draw the line, I have known people who take this stance and then you find yourself working as an agent of Rome Billy Graham is a prime example of co-beligerency as is Melody Green it is another Road to Rome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-77636680499025032522009-12-06T18:21:06.932-05:002009-12-06T18:21:06.932-05:00Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon: "We may take the ...<b>Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon</b>: <i>"We may take the example of the Evangelical spokesman, John MacArthur, Jr. His complaint was very simple: The Manhattan Declaration scans only the symptoms of these social evils but neglects to address their root cause. That is to say, this document fails to proclaim the Gospel of salvation, which is the sole remedy for every social ill.<br /><br />The objections of MacArthur and Tobias are curious in their evident presumption that Christians, when they speak in public, should limit their discourse to the proclamation of the Gospel and the summons to repentance.<br /><br />This may be a legitimate view, though it is neither shared by many Christians over the centuries nor obviously favored by the prophets. Jonah, for instance, preached judgment—not repentance—at Nineveh, nor did his proclamation include one syllable of Good News. If this was true of Jonah, what shall we say of Nahum, whose own message to the Ninevites was just an expansion of Jonah’s meager half-verse? <br /><br />Respectfully, these objections to the Manhattan Declaration (including its rhetoric) could easily have been made against any one—and perhaps all—of the biblical prophets. Our modest Declaration, as a statement of social concern, invites the endorsement of Christians who share that concern. The matter is truly as plain as that.</i>"<br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.inlightofthegospel.org/?p=6553#comment-3996" rel="nofollow">James Grant</a></b>: <i>"<b>I disagree with what I would consider a sectarian view of Christianity that would require me to never agree on these issues with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians.</b> I had no problem signing it. I would encourage you to to read it and sign it as well."</i>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-43455649430023601552009-12-04T02:48:17.751-05:002009-12-04T02:48:17.751-05:00"Count on the Calvinists to shift the focus o...<i>"Count on the Calvinists to shift the focus of important issues and pretend their dogma is at stake. This is why we lose every moral initiative and every cultural battle. Divided we fall."</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, this is a nasty internal battle among conservative Protestants. On one side, some conservative Protestants believe that the Gospel is at stake because of the language in the Manhattan Declaration seems to indicate that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are Christians with a Gospel message on par with Protestantism. On the other side, there are conservative Protestants who don't believe that the Gospel is at stake because the focus of the MD is narrowly limited to 3 issues and that differences among the 3 Faith-Traditions are noted and acknowledged. <br /><br />To really put a sharp point on it, the anti-MD Conservative Protestants regard the pro-MD Conservative Protestants as Gospel Compromisers for teaming up with the Judaizers. While the conservative pro-MD Protestants regard the conservative anti-MD Protestants as condemning Pharisees. Basically, the virulent anti-MD Protestants function as the Protestant Sanhedrin.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-19976173537270066262009-12-03T21:49:08.662-05:002009-12-03T21:49:08.662-05:00Count on the Calvinists to shift the focus of impo...Count on the Calvinists to shift the focus of important issues and pretend their dogma is at stake. This is why we lose every moral initiative and every cultural battle. Divided we fall.Babylon's Dreadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242133678070958465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-75444294331353541342009-12-03T11:09:49.007-05:002009-12-03T11:09:49.007-05:00Truth Unites...
I read the document you linked to...Truth Unites...<br /><br />I read the document you linked to. What follows are my initial thoughts:<br /><br />When you disagree on the application of the Gospel you disagree on a fundamental issue connected to the Historic accomplishment of redemption. That is, the facts of the Gospel are intertwined with the application of the Gospel. In other words, if someone holds a false view on how the Gospel is applied to the individual then they have lost the Gospel itself. After all, if the Gospel is not a properly applied Gospel then how is that truly good news? Therein lies the rub, again, with me. That is, Orthodox and RCC "Christian" institutions teach a different way by which one is saved. Regarding the issue of redemption...all the signers of the document...DO NOT agree on the fundamental facts of what Christ accomplished through His righteous life, sacrificial death and victorious resurrection. Heck, even Southern Baptists (of which I'm one) can't even agree on the issue of what Christ actually accomplished on the cross - most are general as opposed to specific atonement adherants). There is a large chasm of variation of soteriology of the signers of the MD. Again, it assumes all signers possess the true Gospel. They don't both in belif regarding what Christ accomplished or how it is applied.<br /><br />Regarding Christ's Lordship over all things...sure! Absolutely, Jesus is Lord! But not all things have yet been brought under His full domination yet. Is this not in part the message of Ephesians (for instance)? Some day that full domination will happen and every knee will bow. Until that time the god of this age rules (to be sure - he "rules" under the authority of God's sovereignty). One day the heavens and earth will desolve in a fervent heat (remember Peter's message) and all things will be made new - back to their original design (message of Revelation). Until such time we live among pagans who will act like pagans and rule like pagans. We are in a republic and are free as individual believers to make our voices heard in the political arena. I simply do not agree, however, on yoking up with unbelieving religious folks by signing a document that assumes those unbelieving religious folks are truly Christians.James Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00748728650999497693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-74142960832379840822009-12-02T22:00:04.016-05:002009-12-02T22:00:04.016-05:00"Second, and more relevantly, MacArthur under..."Second, and more relevantly, MacArthur underestimates the Lordship of Jesus Christ."<br /><br />Wow. That is just innacurate. Jesus in His own words is not "Lord" over everything. He even rejects some who say He is Lord and in fact He is not in the obedience manifestation.<br /><br />Obvious Jesus is the Creator and as such the Master/Lord over everything, but He is not the Redeemer/Lord over everything. In the end, He will destroy much. But to say MacArthur underestimates the Lordship of Jesus is genuinely a misrepresentation.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, MacArthur has taken much criticism for overestimating the Lordship of Christ. Sometimes you just can't win.Rick Fruehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05879848568892457571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-64173089991648847622009-12-02T20:28:36.909-05:002009-12-02T20:28:36.909-05:00I am wrestling with where the line aught to be dra...I am wrestling with where the line aught to be drawn with Christian influence in the political arena. I look at a man like William Wilberforce who because of political influence changed the tide of human slavery. I am reminded of a verse from Rev 22:11a 'Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile.' We can't Christianise the world, that isn't what we have been commissioned with by the Lord, we can't expect to bring moral revolution to a 'righteously void' people. But does that mean we have to part to play in politics? Look at David, Daniel and his companions, Ezra, Nehemiah, with their influences, they served God powerfully and brought honor to His name. But the line, I suppose, I have drawn within my self is 'the sanctity of life'. Love, compassion, kindness, mercy, etc... all of God and all should be evident of coming from us. Not banning something like 'gay-marriage' because it's wrong and we know God doesn't like it, but because of what will come next, gay couples adopting, a whole new generation messed-up. We can't stop people from indulging their sins by bringing about an outward appearance of moral uprightness, because in the dark and secret places man does what he does because of who he is. Only the power of God through the hearing of the gospel can change a person, no Christian compromise will made things 'good', but does that mean we step out of the political arena? Please correct my thinking.<br />Blessings.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014816895915078837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-90434751006072771752009-12-02T15:52:14.349-05:002009-12-02T15:52:14.349-05:00James Hunt,
Here's an argument for you to con...James Hunt,<br /><br />Here's an <a href="http://web.mac.com/pandrewsandlin/iWeb/Site%2013/Blog/A206D64F-2C07-42D0-99D5-A9D361A0DA6C.html" rel="nofollow">argument</a> for you to consider. It's by Andrew Sandlin and it's titled "Lordship Salvation is Not Enough: A Response to John MacArthur. Excerpts:<br /><br />“MacArthur is wrong on two counts. First, <i>he over-generalizes and oversimplifies the Gospel.</i><br /><br />Second, and more relevantly, <i>MacArthur underestimates the Lordship of Jesus Christ.</i><br /><br />The MD presupposes an ethical calling wider than the Gospel, and we dare not shrink back from the implications of this wholly valid assumption: the Gospel is one of the great themes of the Bible without which there can be no “true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills,” but the Gospel is not the entire, or even the most important, message of the Bible. It is a crucial dimension of an even more momentous message, which is the sovereignty of God over all things (2 Chron. 20:6; Ps. 103:19; Pr. 21:1; Zech. 9:10; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 19:6).<br /><br /><i><b>The MD is suggesting that Jesus is Lord of the state, too, not just Lord of redemption.</b></i> And when the state transgresses its God-ordained role, it stands as a rebel against the kingdom of Jesus Christ to which it, too, and not just the church, is called to submit.<br /><br />But what MacArthur does not seem to grasp, and what the signatories of the MD do grasp, at least intuitively, is that <i>the Lordship of Jesus is wider than individual salvation</i>. This fact is easy to prove.<br /><br />The MD takes a step toward recovering an understanding of the full-fledged Lordship of Jesus — that Christians must speak prophetically to the ethical issues of the time, and expect the state to stay within its divinely prescribed limits. <b>Just as Jesus’ Lordship is wider than the church, so Christians’ message must be wider than the Gospel.</b>”Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-2885320803464213342009-12-02T11:05:59.050-05:002009-12-02T11:05:59.050-05:00How are you, Steve? I was asked about the MD as we...How are you, Steve? I was asked about the MD as well. I wrote my opinion in a parable.<br /><br />http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2009/11/manhattan-declaration-recently-group-of.html<br /><br />I appreciated your thoughts.Rick Fruehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05879848568892457571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-3581335612235327522009-12-02T10:40:27.125-05:002009-12-02T10:40:27.125-05:00Brother Camp. Excellently and thoughtfully writte...Brother Camp. Excellently and thoughtfully written. Good job.James Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00748728650999497693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-2096566966357479252009-12-02T10:38:45.934-05:002009-12-02T10:38:45.934-05:00Dear "Truth Unites and Divides"
I say t...Dear "Truth Unites and Divides"<br /><br />I say that individual Christians should be involved in the political process as much as they feel the impulse to do so; however, I don't believe that they should sign on to documents such as the Manhatten Declaration or Evangelicals and Catholics Together for the sake of common Christian interest when such a document ASSUMES THAT ALL SIGNING ARE LEGITIMATE PROMOTERS OF THE BIBLICAL GOSPEL. Therein lies the issue for me.<br /><br />Please...please give even one example in scripture of anything that lends weight to your position of ECB.James Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00748728650999497693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-2191901750366513792009-12-01T01:30:07.775-05:002009-12-01T01:30:07.775-05:00"12 dangers of Evangelical Cobelligerence&quo..."<b>12 dangers of Evangelical Cobelligerence</b>"<br /><br />I've always enjoyed this exchange from a <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/07/witch-burners-for-christ.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> called "Witch-burners for Christ."<br /><br /><b>Phil Johnson</b>: "<i>You seem to deduce from your theonomic beliefs an implicit imperative for political activism and aggressive, formal co-belligerence (where evangelicals join cartels and forge yokes with anti-Christian religions to campaign for moral causes)."</i><br /><br /><b>Steve Hays</b>: "There are two separate issues here. Let’s deal with one at a time:<br /><br />First of all, as regards political activism there are three possible options:<br /><br />1.A Christian is duty-bound to participate in the democratic process.<br /><br />2.A Christian is duty-bound not to participate in the democratic process.<br /><br />3.Political activism falls under category of the adiaphora.<br /><br />Now, there are arguments for and against (1). And it isn’t essential to my position to argue for (1). At least, not here and now. <br /><br />However, some of the critics of ECB talk as though they espouse (2). They regard political activism as a false priority. For them, preaching the gospel should be our priority, and since political activism necessarily diverts time and resources away from that endeavor, it is wrong for Christians to invest any time in political activism.<br /><br />As to (3), this can be taken in more than one way. As I’ve said before, I think the proper way to establish Scriptural warrant operates not on a one-to-one correspondence between a specific injunction and a specific practice, but on a one-to-many correspondence between a general injunction and a variety of special cases which adapt and apply that general injunction to our particular circumstances.<br /><br />Now how, exactly, we apply the general norm is, in some measure, a matter of Christian liberty. There may be more than one way we can do it. But whether we do it at all is not a matter of Christian liberty. <br /><br />So, for example, look at what Paul has to say about the civil or political use of the law in 1 Tim 1:9-10. How, exactly, we implement that standing obligation varies with our opportunities and circumstances. There is more than one way of enacting and enforcing this moral norm. But we are certainly not at liberty to disregard it if we are in a position to honor and uphold it.<br /><br />Secondly, there is the question of what associations are licit and what are illicit. Are we talking about first-degree separatism, second-degree separatism, or what?<br /><br />For example, critics of ECB are critical of alliances between Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals. This would be a prescription for first-degree separatism: don’t associate with non-Evangelicals or unbelievers.<br /><br />But they are equally critical of those who, while Evangelical in their own profession, associate with non-Evangelicals. Dobson and Colson are favorite whipping boys in this regard.<br /><br />That would be a prescription for second-degree separatism: don’t associate with those who associate with non-Evangelicals or unbelievers.<br /><br />And although critics of ECB are fond of quoting 2 Cor 6, they don’t explain how their apparent endorsement of second-degree separatism is consonant with 1 Cor 5:9-11.<br /><br />Thirdly, critics of ECB are not only critical of cobelligerence, but they are equally critical of political activism per se, on the grounds that it diverts time and attention away from the only real solution to crime and moral decline, which is the gospel.<br /><br />But if that is the case, then the objection to ECB is secondary. For even if such political alliances were limited to fellow Evangelicals, whether in the form of first- or second-degree separatism, critics of ECB would still disapprove on the primary grounds that we should not lobby for legislation anyway; since legislation treats the symptom rather than the cause."Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-88506072500914194632009-11-30T18:24:13.836-05:002009-11-30T18:24:13.836-05:00I think this article distorts the purpose of the M...I think this article distorts the purpose of the Manhattan Declaration. Basically, the document says Christians will not PARTICIPATE in abortion or gay marriage. It does not dictate to the world morality, but basically indicates we will not submit to forced participation. That's it. That's the purpose of the document. <br />I think sometimes we lose sight the lives lost through abortion. The world will be deaf to the gospel if the Church goes along to get along, participating in human sacrifice by funding it. I hope that in Stalin's Russia, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Hilter's Germany, or during the Turkish Armenian genocide I would have stood with those being persecuted and killed - even if that meant standing with Russian Orthodox Ministers or Armenian Christians with whom I did not agree theologically. I have participated with Roman Catholics in pro-life activities primarily because they are the people most active in saving lives through protests, outreach, post-abortion counseling, etc. Where I live, I am glad to see some Lutherans (Missouri Synod) also taking a strong stand for life. My convictions lie much closer theologically to the Lutherans, but I will gladly help those who are willing to do the work to save lives. <br />Is preaching Christ Crucified for the forgiveness of sins important? Absolutely. It is the Christian message. However, if Evangelical Christians, Reformed Christians, and Reformation-minded Christians don't stand up now - when do they? If the state says you can't preach the whole of Scripture on the radio - do you shut down? Or modify your sermons? When the state says you must have abortion coverage for workers at a Christian University should they simply comply? I see the Manhattan declaration as more of a call to Christians to stay true to their faith and stand with those who share similar convictions although principally not the same faith. And there may be consequences for those who do not participate in the state’s agenda.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06422291625814832448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-38045268862542643032009-11-30T06:42:10.276-05:002009-11-30T06:42:10.276-05:00Right on target, Steve. You have expressed quite w...Right on target, Steve. You have expressed quite well what I have thought for a long time.<br /><br />"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts." (Zec 4:6 ESV)Lance Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08658525748126215787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124132923401477632005-08-15T15:08:00.000-04:002005-08-15T15:08:00.000-04:00Campi, you mentioned the removal of offense and de...Campi, you mentioned the removal of offense and denying the efficacy of the cross. I see this as THE KEY issue at hand here. The "ECB" movement has allowed blantant heretics (read Catholics) and neo-pagans (read cultural conservatives that deny Christ) to remain comfortable in their sin. You know Phil Johnsons testimony! Men who are more concerned about a political agenda than the salvation of the souls around them ought to be ashamed!<BR/><BR/>I understann engaging you political community, I am politically active here in Toledo. But I would not allow a heretical Romanists to take the pulpit of my church for ANY reason. This simply allows him to gain even more comfort in his rebellion. <BR/><BR/>And as far as MacArthur's numerous appearances on Larry King, the issue is not that one articulates the gospel line upon line every time one gets a platform, but the the issue of the gospel is the central focus ones theology and practice, not a socio-political conservatives. <BR/><BR/>Incidently, isn't the root of the Religious right the amillinialism?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01158723529553283136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124085801405092652005-08-15T02:03:00.000-04:002005-08-15T02:03:00.000-04:00Camp... amazing... truly amazing. If every man st...Camp... amazing... truly amazing. If every man studied as you do (and as people like Phil Johnson and MacArthur do), how effective could Christianity here in America be? Not only do you show yourself approved (2 Tim. 2:15), but you proclaim truth to those discerning enough to listen. I wholeheartedly agree. I am sick and tired of hearing about politics; politics will die with the world... but salvation is eternal. The church has much more important business to attend to!<BR/><BR/>As for the comment on MacArthur, I believe the person who said that has not done enough research or read any of the Larry King/MacArthur transcripts. MacArthur, aside from being my college pres, is an amazing man of God, dedicated to the Word and its proclamation, and has always used every chance he gets on Larry King to boldly preach truth as everyone else on the show shamelessly hounds him. Thank you, again, Bro. Camp, for rightly defending a great man of God, and thank you for your own ministry. I continue to read your blog and that of Phil Johnson!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124078050636528432005-08-14T23:54:00.000-04:002005-08-14T23:54:00.000-04:00I just saw some of Justice Sunday II on TBN (I kno...I just saw some of Justice Sunday II on TBN (I know this is weird),<BR/><BR/>I totally see the concerns more deeply as Steve Camp had said and seeing it directly has sharpened my concerns.<BR/><BR/>There are big concerns and Steve you have enumerated them well in this list. It is rapidly becoming in the category of the "health and wealth" gospel or "prosperity gospel" in my understanding of the theology of it. It's very dominion oriented theology, but actually telling us we are just "proposing".<BR/><BR/>My biggest impression of the event is the constant appeal from the speakers about our "rights" as Christians and the thunderous applause from the audience each time that was brought up. These are appeals to the flesh. I have the rights to take up MY CROSS and follow Him in the path of suffering for the sake of the gospel and I didn't see one person stop clapping. It was a political rally the parts I listened too. <BR/><BR/>I was so surprised to see the constant statements running through it like that, except from Chuck Colson who said to pray for those who oppose our political beliefs. <BR/><BR/>I hope to hear other people's impression.Shawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06809663608386103910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124070779699893932005-08-14T21:52:00.000-04:002005-08-14T21:52:00.000-04:00Unchained Slave, thanks again.I went to the previo...Unchained Slave, thanks again.<BR/><BR/>I went to the previous blog and found Campi's last comment, then made comment #30. <BR/><BR/>He is saying the same things there.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124069208440382222005-08-14T21:26:00.000-04:002005-08-14T21:26:00.000-04:00Ted,I agree with your comments totally, I'm just r...Ted,<BR/>I agree with your comments totally, <BR/><BR/>I'm just reiterating:<BR/> - Yes it is good as individuals to be involved. <BR/>- Yes it is good for organizations with a strong Christian foundation to be involved. <BR/>- Yes it is good for Teachers (pastors, ministers, et.al.) to take on 'hot-button' politically charged topics from the pulpit - teaching what Scripture says about it.<BR/><BR/>- No it is not right for the pulpit to be used as a 'political' tool to threaten politicians with the 'church vote' or to further a political agenda.<BR/><BR/>- No it is not right for the church to make alliances with 'strange bedfellows' to further those political agendas.<BR/><BR/><BR/>NOW TOTALLY OFF THE SUBJECT - Has anyone else noticed that 'Microsoft Word' is 'politically correct'?<BR/><BR/>Type in 'saving grace' and it spits out "redeeming quality" & "redeeming feature" as 'grammatical corrections'...Unchained Slavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11878050928426060918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124067703758459662005-08-14T21:01:00.000-04:002005-08-14T21:01:00.000-04:00Whatever bedfellows one wants in history still doe...Whatever bedfellows one wants in history still doesn't make all things right. I never look to other men. My only point is that the bedfellows we are choosing are not bedfellows but in fact we are in bed as Goldilocks asking to look at our would be bedfellows teeth. Right or wrong we can go on and on.<BR/>I don't look to men in fact I sympathize or rather the one with the most sense in the Bible was Balaam's donkey and I am not ashamed to admit it but that is who I feel like the most right now. EEEE haaaw EEEEE haw but so be it. Wake up and smell the Romans. There comes a point when someone needs to shock everybody away from this as scripture and reason doesn't seem to work.EEEE haw EEEE haaawwww. There. i feel so much better now.Bhedrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08091896907803479900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124067277922652702005-08-14T20:54:00.000-04:002005-08-14T20:54:00.000-04:00Unchained Slave, I am relatively new to this post....Unchained Slave, I am relatively new to this post. Thanks for your clarifications.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the church must not get sidetracked from our calling from God. <BR/><BR/>The message of God's kingdom in Christ is not of this world. Yet by it we are to be God's salt and light in the world.<BR/><BR/>I believe in considering the church's call, we do need to take into account all of Scripture, as well as especially those scriptures pertaining to the church.<BR/><BR/>In doing so I think it is good and right for churches to speak out on behalf of the poor and oppressed, as well as the unborn. But to do so as a moral position.<BR/><BR/>One must remember that God uses people like William Wilberforce who himself was a politician. But I'm sure this post agrees with that, and probably essentially with what I have been saying.<BR/><BR/>I will say that I don't find it objectionable by Scripture for Christian organizations to appeal to Christians to let their political representatives know what they think about a certain issue. I myself do not engage in such activities. But I think there may be appropriate times we can benefit from such organizations, and let our voice be heard in Washington.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124064309486929082005-08-14T20:05:00.000-04:002005-08-14T20:05:00.000-04:00Ted,Sorry, but you missed a couple of articles...(...Ted,<BR/>Sorry, but you missed a couple of articles...(and comments)<BR/><BR/>Steve has maintained (and I agree) that it is our 'duty' to BE INVOLVED with the political process.<BR/><BR/>What he (we) are upset about is 'using' the church as a 'Political Action Committee'. <BR/><BR/>The puplit should not be used for political rallies, it should be used to preach 'The Word'.Unchained Slavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11878050928426060918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124064198519171882005-08-14T20:03:00.000-04:002005-08-14T20:03:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Unchained Slavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11878050928426060918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124061678988645202005-08-14T19:21:00.000-04:002005-08-14T19:21:00.000-04:00I appreciate the readiness you have to contend for...I appreciate the readiness you have to contend for the faith that the Lord has once for all entrusted to us, his people (Jude).<BR/><BR/>I would like to express disagreement on this issue. Though I myself am not entirely in step with the "religious right" and especially their penchant to "power politics" (in my view).<BR/><BR/>However, this being a democracy, really a democratic republic, I do believe that when Christians engage in the political process that at times there may be "strange bedfellows" indeed.<BR/><BR/>For example, let's go back to the Civil War, and pre-Civil War era. Many of the most devoted Bible preaching churches defended slavery on the basis of their interpretation of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>There were other churches, who like William Wilberforce in England, disagreed and believed that Scripture supports the abolition of slavery. And, of course, especially in the northern states, you found opposition to slavery that was not firmly (if at all) grounded in Scripture, from religious and nonreligious people and institutions alike.<BR/><BR/>Of course I know much more was going on in people's minds during that time, not just the slavery issue.<BR/><BR/>So am I being told here that Christians should not engage in the political process because of who may join them or be part of their efforts?<BR/><BR/>If you are saying churches should not, then I agree thoroughly.<BR/><BR/>But if you are saying that individual Christians cannot become active in giving to organizations such as "Right to Life", just because Mormons or whoever may also be giving to that cause, I question that logic. <BR/><BR/>Where in Scripture are we forbidden to engage in a cause (e.g., maybe we need bumps on the street to slow down drivers) just because those joining us in the effort are not Christian?<BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts. I'm thinking out loud so I expect that either someone could point out a mistake in my thinking, or else could show a better and clearer way- all with reference to Scripture. Maybe your point is a bit different and we're talking past each other.<BR/><BR/>I believe God gives us reason but the only authority is God himself and the one rule he has given us for faith and practice is the Bible. Of course we need the Spirit to help us receive the truth of that inscripturated revelation.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1124053389223189202005-08-14T17:03:00.000-04:002005-08-14T17:03:00.000-04:00scribe said: "What troubled me, though........On t...scribe said: "What troubled me, though........On the same page as this wonderful piece are listed links to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and The Weekly Standard — co-conspirators in this 'moral' fight as well as some of the greatest offenders of truth and fair reporting of the news."<BR/><BR/>scribe, let not your heart be troubled. Just because there are links to these sites, does not mean that Campi agrees 100% with everything Hannity and Limbaugh believe. (He's merely giving links to sites whose news reporting can be trusted). Though I have not always been in agreement with them on every single belief, their theology or methodology, I find them to be very truthful in reporting the news. Could you perhaps email me with some examples of their reporting untruths? As for their being co-conspirators in the moral fight, Steve has stated in previous articles that Hannity is a Romanist; he is well aware of that fact.<BR/><BR/>Steve, perhaps you should add a link to CNN or 60 Minutes, so we can see the difference between fair/unfair and truthful/untruthful. ;-)littlegal_66https://www.blogger.com/profile/09424599483109788899noreply@blogger.com